Talk:South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club

Regarding Henry Clay Frick
Certainly Henry Clay Frick was a founding member of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, but this article implies that Frick did most of the organizational and recruiting work for the Club, more so than Benjamin F. Ruff. What would be the source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.123.131 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The two seem to have known each other. Ruff was a coke dealer, and Frick was the big wheel in the coal-and-coke business.

This from "Profiles in Time"

Here is how two Flood historians describe it…

In 1879 Henry Clay Frick was approached by a good friend and neighbor, Benjamin Ruff. Mr. Ruff had quite an idea - to purchase an old canal reservoir a few miles upstream from Johnstown and create a new fishing and hunting club, which was all the rage at the time. Mr. Frick signed on, and in that year the infamous South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club was born. ( http://profilesintime.blogspot.com/2007/02/benjamin-franklin-ruff.html ) dr-t

Content move
Suggest that the sections regarding the dam, the flood and aftermath be moved to the article about the dam. --DustWolf (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge on the grounds that: the key material needs validation from a source better than a bog, the material incorporates significant club history (given that Ruff was a founding member of the club, who interested were closely entwined with the fate of the dam) and that a better target, should a move take place, would be to the Johnstown Flood page as background. Klbrain (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing, given that there has been no support despite being tagged since August 2016. Klbrain (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced facts
Hello, could you please enlighten us as to how you feel the content that you reversed today is a JAHA copyright infringement? .Lindenfall (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , While pure lists sometimes are not subject to copyright, this didn't appear to be a qualifying exception. We can check with someone else if you disagree.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Can you explain what you mean by "us"? S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What list? The only list on the page is not at issue here. You said: "They are a copy of material on a site clear marked as subject to full copyright." As I stated, JAHA was neither referenced nor quoted in the material you've deleted (citing that site as your issue). You've deleted several relevant facts and their reliable sources, none of which were JAHA. Please respond specifically. ("Us", of course, is those who may be interested in this page.) Lindenfall (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , by list, I refer to the list of facts on this page. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel I am having quite a time having my actual question addressed here, and resist the urge to be drawn into off-topic discussions about copyrights, and everything else you mention, none of which has addressed my original query. Deleting the article is, yet again, a whole new discussion. What has the list you linked got to do with the deletions of sourced facts that you made to the article today? It was not used as a source on the page. The pre-existing article, like the list of names on it, has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, or the content you deleted. NAHA was not referenced. You deleted several other WP:RS references, which you fail to respond to. Quite mystifying, all in all. Lindenfall (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's an excellent point, and my comment shouldn't have been directed at you, but at all editors, so I moved it.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Responding to your point, this is the edit that triggered a report at Copy Patrol. It is common, when reverting an edit as a result of copyright considerations, to do a roll-back, which can pick up unrelated content. I'll be happy to discuss why that is done, but it sounds like you want to concentrate on why I reverted some facts. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , when you say NAHA, do you mean JAHA? I'm not sure why you say they are not a source. Please look at the reference again. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it's not a source on the data you deleted because it simply was not. Look at the sources you actually deleted... none were JAHA. I had, prior, added a paraphrasing of some of that list to a different section (Aftermath), but had noted so belatedly, having forgotten to. But, then, I decided that it didn't really belong on the club page and removed it myself (before you came along), but not because it was in any copyright violation, which it is not, being a paraphrasing of JAHA's list which they compiled from facts that are all public record, but that is beside the point. (Perhaps you are under the misconception that you reversed something that I already had → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Fork_Fishing_and_Hunting_Club&diff=next&oldid=900142823 (Yes, JAHA, as I wrote earlier, it's just a typo, as any could plainly see.) Lindenfall (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I may be tracking down the problem, although I fail to understand why you haven't mention this point. this edit is problematic. The very next edit has an edit summary "Moved detail to Aftermath section.". I thought you were moving the material to the aftermath section, but you were aimply remocing it. I don't understand the edit summary, or why you are pretending not to understand what I have been talking about but we can discuss next steps. Not now - dinner is served. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit you are pointing was immediately deleted by myself, not you, (and for reasons other than you state), before you appeared and deleted what I had labored hours over, and which did not even reference JAHA.
 * "I don't understand the edit summary," → It is not even related to what you deleted, nor the subject of this discussion (which, unfortunately, is only notable for its misdirection).
 * "or why you are pretending not to understand what I have been talking about." → "Pretending"? Perhaps I don't understand why you are pretending that what you deleted was either a list, or contained any reference to JAHA.
 * "it sounds like you want to concentrate on why I reverted some facts" That was the singular point, all along, in its entirety, and remains unanswered.
 * "Tracking down the problem"... Perhaps you simply reversed the wrong edit to begin with, one that had already been deleted (by me), in fact, and are apparently blind to the possibility of your error? I see you have now restored the material, without explanation, nor any explanation whatsoever for its removal throughout this protracted discussion. That's a lot of words to literally never address the specific subject of the discussion. Lindenfall (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , let's see if we can close this discussion on a point of agreement - this has been a colossal waste of time. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider deletion of this article
Just now, I decided to look at the entire article, and I don't like what I see. Personally, I think it should be deleted. There's justification for an article about the historic district, but scant evidence that the club is notable outside of it's connection to the flood. There's already far more about the flood than the club. Adding more about the flood is the wrong way to go, that content should be cut back, not expanded. I don't think there's a legitimate rationale for the list of founding members. Some are notable, but most are not. I don't have the time to devote to this, for whatever reason. OTRS is especially active today, as well as copyright issues, but if someone wants to consider a deletion, I'll join the discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The notability of this club is primarily based on its notable founders and membership, and its role in the Johnstown Flood. Lindenfall (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a comment: I think the "South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historic District" makes the subject notable. The district is specifically focused on the club itself (its buildings etc.), not the dam or the flood. Anything listed on the National Register of Historic Places is generally considered notable and worthy of an article, and the article is generally not about the "historic district" as such; it is usually about the thing that makes the district historic. So IMO this article would survive AfD if it ever got that far. Maybe it could be refocused to be more about the club and less about the flood, but the club seems to be independently notable. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your insightful comments. I put together my thoughts on how to go forward which are presented below, and finished writing them before seeing your response. I think we are clearly on the same page that the historic district deserves an article. As I note below, I think it deserves a separate article. It's kind of odd to see and obviously notable historic district simply mentioned as a section of an article about a much less notable organization. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

, I would appreciate your input on this article.

I don't think there's much question that Wikipedia ought to have an article on the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club Historic District.

What's not clear to me is whether:
 * a standalone article ought to be created, possibly using some of this article as text
 * this article ought to be rewritten so that it is about the historic district primarily and mentions the organization in passing
 * something else

The problem with the existing article is that it purports to be about the organization, but has more content about the flood that the organization itself. To the extent there is discussion about the organization, the bulk of it is taken up by a long list of club membership, plus a listing of charter members. While some of the members were, indeed, notable, I don't think that justifies the inclusion of the entire list.

I think the article about the historic district ought to mention the club, but I think it ought to be a smallish section of the article rather than the subject of the article. I'm not convinced that the club itself deserves an article. While the Johnstown flood obviously is notable, and affected the club, that doesn't make the club itself notable. Several of the members are notable, but as you know, notability is not inherited, so the notability of the club itself, separate from a handful of its members and its involvement in the flood, needs to be established.

It's my opinion that there ought to be an article about the historic district which mentions the club but not an article about the club itself. If someone makes a solid argument that the club deserves notability, perhaps based on some information that is not yet presented, this article ought to remain the article about the club, with the Johnstown flood mentioned of course but mentioned rather than dominating the article. Then, someone, hopefully you, would work on a separate standalone article about the historic district. Alternatively, this article could be rewritten to be more about the historic district, mentioning both flood and the club. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article about the historic district ought to mention the club, but I think it ought to be a smallish section of the article rather than the subject of the article. Umm, please take another look at the name of the historic district? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's kind of odd to see and obviously notable historic district simply mentioned as a section of an article about a much less notable organization. I really don't follow this logic. The club is the whole reason there is a historic district. Anything which is important enough to inspire a national historic district specifically about that thing - that's kind of a definition of notable in my book. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't miss the name of the district at all.
 * As noted in National_Register_of_Historic_Places, Inclusion requires meeting at least one of four criteria. While a property making a contribution to history is one of the criteria it's not the only one. For example one could meet criterion C:
 * ""Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building by its architecture and construction, including having great artistic value or being the work of a master."
 * ""Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building by its architecture and construction, including having great artistic value or being the work of a master."
 * ""Design/Construction," concerns the distinctive characteristics of the building by its architecture and construction, including having great artistic value or being the work of a master."


 * But that doesn't remotely mean that the inhabitants of the building, in this case a club, are notable. This isn't a technicality, I suspect there are many hundreds of locations for which the supplied reasoning for the inclusion has nothing to do with the inhabitants. As just one example Fargo_Theatre. The nomination form clearly indicates that the building is on the list for its architectural significance not for anything that would suggest notability for its owners.
 * Unfortunately, it appears that the nomination form for this location has not yet been digitized so we can't look at it to see how it came to qualify. It seems likely that the flood contributes as well as the architectural significance of the buildings but we can't necessarily infer that the occupants of the building are notable simply because the buildings are part of the historic district. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears that the nomination form for this location has not yet been digitized so we can't look at it to see how it came to qualify. It seems likely that the flood contributes as well as the architectural significance of the buildings but we can't necessarily infer that the occupants of the building are notable simply because the buildings are part of the historic district. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears that the nomination form for this location has not yet been digitized so we can't look at it to see how it came to qualify. It seems likely that the flood contributes as well as the architectural significance of the buildings but we can't necessarily infer that the occupants of the building are notable simply because the buildings are part of the historic district. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * argh, lost a longer note. Cite to THIS needs updating. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually LIKE the article's content, think this expose is great, important to keep somewhere, not nec at HD topic. Need to see HD nom doc. wp:NRHPhelpPA has instructions, perhaps outdated, including saying u must use MSIE, not Chrome. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The National Archives has a copy of the NRHP doc, search for reference number "86002091" per instructions at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources, and click a download button.
 * Maybe https://catalog.archives.gov/id/71998258 works directly? (not working, at least not quickly for me right now)
 * Or https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/rg-079/NPS_PA/86002091.pdf? (This works easily now for me)
 * It is a 64 page document, covers the clubhouse of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club and eight lake front cottages, includes photos. It is really about the club, seems appropriate to cover in article about the club, not separately, imho. Doc authors Richard F. Truscello, Fred Denk, William Sisson; date of prep May 1986. --Doncram (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for providing a working link. I'm not quite sure why my search failed. He reminded me of a point I had forgotten, that the site is not Chrome friendly, but that doesn't explain the message that the document has not been digitized. It obviously has been.
 * I read through the document and clearly viewed it differently than you did. I saw it as primarily about the architectural significance of the buildings, with the club mentioned but not the primary subject. In any event, my job is done.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, Doncram! And thanks for the valid link; I have added it to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Too much content about the flood
While much of the discussion was years ago, each reader has their own take. I think there is way too much discussion about the flood here. Yes, the club decisions appear to have contributed to the failure, but there is an entire article about the flood. I think most of such information as the 21st-century investigation and resulting book belongs there, although it can be briefly noted here. I also agree with those who thought it unnecessary to have all members of the club listed. This is not a book about the club or events. Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)